Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Including state governments? (Must ask a Ron Paul supporter since he supports DOMA).
Yes! Marriage should be a contract between if you want it god and a couple. If not then just the couple. Personally I don't approve of Homosexual marriage but its the government making a huge freaking deal of this. I think everyone should be allowed to do what they want as long as they aren't harming me. Government tries to legislate morality,homosexual activists push back and are winning and its taking a toll on schools and what kids are learning etc. Why can't the government just realize its not their right to say who can be married and who can't and leave it alone! Kids should be able to grow up not being indoctrinated in the politics of this but that is what is happening. I am for Polygamy if people of consenting age agree I am for all kids of marriage as long as I am not harmed...I just get tired of the politics associated with this having affects on everyone else...its gone to far.
I don't think it was poorly written. It was an accurate description of the case and of the discriminatory effect of DOMA. You're correct in that DOMA undermines the full faith and credit clause - that's section 2 of DOMA (although court cases dealing with section 2 of DOMA have been mixed). This lawsuit dealt with section 3 of DOMA. Section 3 says:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Most of the rights of marriage are federal. Section 3 of DOMA denies to any homosexual couple - whether legally married in Iowa, in a civil union in New Jersey, etc - access to any federal rights associated with marriage. For instance, the legal gay husband of a military member cannot live in base housing or shop at the commissary or PX whereas the straight wife of a military member can.
This case is about a women who works for the federal government. Her employment comes with health insurance to which you can add your spouse. She is legally married to another women, and she tried to add her wife to her health insurance, but, because of DOMA, she was denied. The court (rightfully I might add), found that this violates her Constitutional right (under the 5th and 14th Amendments) to equal protection under our civil laws.
I disagree with you about the article being accurate. If the article had published just half the information you just posted it would have been more informative, but they did not. Instead of going into a rant about "tradition" the article should have stuck with the constitutional issues surrounding the case. Last time I checked the US Constitution "tradition" was not a protected right. It was a terribly written article.
They tried to pull that same stunt in Alaska. Alaska does not allow same-sex marriages, but the State must recognize the lawful marriage of same-sex couples from other States. The State legislature passed a law in 2007 prohibiting same-sex couples (who are State employees) from getting State insurance benefits, and then Governor Sarah Palin vetoed the bill stating that it violated the Alaska Constitution, which it did.
The tax benefits are there to encourage people to stay together to raise the children they bring into the world. I would agree to this if we also deduct the tax incentives you get for having kids.
I'd go along with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Not just taxes, but ALL legal rights, protections and privileges associated with "marriage".
Property and medical legal considerations are but two that jump immediately to mind.
I'd go along with this, too.
None for kids.
Parents get a free public education.
If they can't afford kids without additional incentives, perhaps they should rethink the whole breeding part of life.
Does it matter?? Obama already said he would ignore it anyway. He doesn't believe in the court system he is the final decider.
Can't you make your point without intentionally lying?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
